RAJAGOPAL M Vs. SECRETARY STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm, K.M.S. Bus Service, Palghat. It is a partnership carrying on the business of operation of stage carriage services in the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Originally the partners were one M. Rayappa Gounder now deceased and M. Rajagopal, both said to be sons of one Marappa Gounder. One Krishna Kumar was also taken into the benefits of the partnership. He was a minor and on his attaining majority he is said to have become the third partner. M. Rayappa Gounder the Managing Partner of that firm is said to have died on 16th January 1974, and by virtue of Clause.15 of the partnership deed, his widow is said to have succeeded to his share in the partnership assets. The petitioner, Rajagopal became the Managing Partner on the death of his brother Rayappa Gounder.

(2.) It is said that all the permits and registration certificates for the vehicles operating in the various routes for the business of the firm were standing in the name of Rayappa Gounder. On the death of Rayappa Gounder the petitioner as the Managing Partner of the firm applied to the State Transport Authority for transfer of such permits and also the registrations of ownership in respect of four stage carriages plying on interstate routes. By Ext. P2 order dated 21st March 1975 the State Transport Authority allowed such application. But the current records have not been produced and Ext. P8 is the last reminder to produce the current records of the said vehicles. In the meanwhile resort to this Court has been made because of Ext. P7 a letter from the Tax Recovery Officer, Trichur, to the Regional Transport Officer, Palghat, requesting him not to permit the transfer of ownership of any of the motor vehicles registered in the name of Rayappa Gounder. Reference was specifically made to eight vehicles. It is said that 11 vehicles were operated by the firm of which eight stood in the name of Rayappa Gounder. Ext. P7 was in respect of the said eight vehicles.

(3.) Rayappa Gounder appears to have been an assessee under the Income Tax Act and is said to have been heavily in arrears of tax. A notice under R.2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act had been served on him during his lifetime. The amount remained unpaid. On his death a notice appears to have been served on his widow as his legal representative. The legal representative is, therefore, said to be in default. R.16 operates to render transfers of the nature referred to in that rule incompetent when notice has been served on the defaulter under R.2. The Tax Recovery Officer has taken the stand that the vehicles standing in the name of Rayappa Gounder belonged to him personally and in view of the service of notice on him under R.2 any transfer by him or his legal representative would be incompetent. That is the background for the issue of Ext. P7. The petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that Ext. P7 is incompetent and that the said direction should not persuade the State Transport Authority to revoke Ext. P2 and should not also stand in the way of transfer of ownership of the vehicles in the name of the current Managing Partner of the firm in accordance with the application submitted by him. In support of this plea the case of the petitioner is that Rayappa Gounder had taken registration of the vehicles in his name only as a Managing Partner of the firm and therefore, the transfer to the petitioner's name was merely a formality as it was only an alteration of the Managing Partner in the registration certificate.